If What The Skeptics Believe Is True, Then Where's Their Evidence?

Why do you keep pushing this bloviating charlatan Lennox?

His sophistry is so obvious that it's cringeworthy.

He's actually still asking nonsense questions like: Why is there something rather than nothing?

This particular piece of sophistry is designed to de facto introduce 'agency', because only a sentient agent could have the purpose that accompanies the deceptive use of the word 'why'.

Were Lennox intellectually honest (he isn't... not by any means) he would ask" How is there something rather than nothing?

This is a legitimate question, it is worthy of answer, and already several theoretical approaches address it. The question does not deceptively introduce any need for 'agency'... and Lennox has not the slightest clue how to answer it.